From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Liljeberg Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT Date: 17 Jul 2003 14:54:57 +0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <1058442897.5780.69.camel@hades> References: <1058440586.5781.59.camel@hades> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, davem@redhat.com, jmorris@redhat.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Pekka Savola In-Reply-To: <1058440586.5781.59.camel@hades> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 14:16, Mika Liljeberg wrote: > On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 10:04, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > ip route add 3ffe::.... via 193.233.7.65 > > > > That would be simpler but, we actually require: > > > > ip route add 3ffe::... via ::193.233.7.65 > > > > and thus require a route for ::/96. That's confusing: ::/96 has a very > > specific purpose in RFCs, and we should not be overloading the > > functionality, it's just plain confusing. > > I agree with Pekka. Alexey, you yourself admitted that this hack was put > in, because you needed a way to represent an IPv4 address in IPv6 > format. The IPv4-mapped format (::ffff:a.b.c.d) exists exactly for this > purpose. User space tools can accept it as a.b.c.d and convert to > IPv4-Mapped for the IPv6 API. There is no need to invent non-standard > practises. Ok, I have to correct myself a bit here. Looking at the 6to4 RFC it actually does recommend the fe80::v4addr format, already mentioned, in case a link-local address is needed. So we would have: ip route add 3ffe:... via fe80::bada:bee4 dev sitX Clean, although not as convenient for the user. MikaL